Section 34 of Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence, is clear that no evidence which has not been formally

offered shall be considered.

FACTS:
ATLAS filed a VAT return for the first quarter of 1993 and subsequently, applied with the BIR for
the
issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund for such VAT paid. The Court of Tax Appeals denied the
application for tax credit or refund for insufficiency of evidence as ATLAS did not comply with the
submission of the necessary documents as mandated by RR 3-88.
The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the same. ATLAS failure to submit necessary documents
in accordance to RR 3-88 is fatal to the application for tax credit or refund, for, without these
documents, Atlas VAT export sales indicated in its amended VAT return and the creditable or
refundable input VAT could not be ascertained.
ISSUE:
Whether or not ATLAS has sufficiently proven entitlement to a tax credit or refund.
RULING:
No. Section 34 of Rule 132, Revised Rules on Evidence, is clear that no evidence which has not been
formally offered shall be considered.
ATLAS has failed to meet the burden of proof required in order to establish the factual basis of its
claim for a tax credit or refund. Where the receipts and the export documents purportedly showing
the VAT paid by Atlas were not submitted, the court could not determine the authenticity of the
input
VAT Atlas has paid. The most competent evidence must be adduced and presented to prove the
allegations in a complaint, petition, or protest before a judicial court. And where the best evidence
cannot be submitted, secondary evidence may be presented. In this case, the pertinent documents
which are the best pieces of evidence were not presented. In addition, the summary presented by
Atlas does not replace the pertinent documents as competent evidence to prove the fact of
refundable
or creditable input VAT. These documents are the best and competent pieces of evidence required
to
substantiate Atlas claim for tax credit or refund. As tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions
and construed strictly against the taxpayer, it is improper to allow ATLAS to simply prevail and
compel a tax credit or refund in the amount it claims without proving the amount of its claim.